According to a recent report cheating among college and university students is on the rise However Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeav

Essay topics:

According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced a system in which teachers closely monitored students; under that system, teachers reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. In the first year the honor code was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

In this article, quoting a recent report, the author argues that all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's to reduce cheating among students. Although this claim seems convincing at first glance, many wrong assumptions and lack of evidence lead me to question the validity of his opinion.

First of all, the author assumes that Groventon's honor code that students report a suspect student who is cheating has a significant effect on decreasing cheating among students. However, the relationship between adopting the new policy and the cheating reduction is not clear in this argument. There could be other factors affecting the changes in cheating behavior of students in college. For example, since more students understand the negative aspect of cheating and social justice, many students might quit cheating in their college life by the time. In this case, the cheating reduction may not be the direct result of the honor code, so the author's assumption can be wrong. To bolster his claim, the author needs to show the exact relationships between the policy and the effect.

Second, according to the report, the number of cheating before adopting the honor code was reported by the teacher, and the number of cheating in a recent report was reported by the students. This fact informs that the author's assertion could have a flaw in the correctness of the data about cheating. For instance, the teacher could find more cheating in college since they could monitor the students more closely in the past. But now, the honor code replaced the monitoring system to notifying by the student when they witness the cheating of other students. So, the decreased number of cheating is not an effect of the new policy, just a side effect that most of the students do not report the cheating behavior of other students than before. Therefore, to validate his opinion, the author should provide more precise data based on the same survey criteria.

Lastly, the author ignores the discrepancy in circumstances of various colleges and universities. No policy can implement in all different places. Since every college and university has its own culture about academic life and education, even if the colleges adopt the same policy, the effect of the policy could be quite different in many aspects. For example, other colleges already may have fewer cases of cheating than Groveton College. In this case, the honor code would not affect the enhancement in cheating in the college. To strengthen his argument, the author needs to provide information that includes each university's cultural and academic characteristics, the extent of the schools, and other aspects affecting cheating behavior.

In conclusion, this article has many flaws based on wrong assumptions and incorrect data. To implement the recommendation, the author should provide more information such as the relationship between the honor code and cheating, more accurate data about the number of cheating, and the similarity of colleges and universities.

Votes
Average: 5.8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 649, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...direct result of the honor code, so the authors assumption can be wrong. To bolster his...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 220, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he students. This fact informs that the authors assertion could have a flaw in the corr...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2566.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24744376278 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71346486811 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435582822086 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 795.6 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3270011867 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.636363636 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2272727273 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.90909090909 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 6.88822355289 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.432494479548 0.218282227539 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134880057708 0.0743258471296 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114540650828 0.0701772020484 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245996928642 0.128457276422 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118189095602 0.0628817314937 188% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2502 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.635 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.227 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.555 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5